16 July 2006 - 4:08pm
Just one more reason why I will not vote for Condi if she runs
Utterly "grotesque" statements like this:
STEPHANOPOULOS: But before the war in Iraq many argued that going into Iraq would stir up a hornet’s nest. The administration strongly disagreed and here’s what Vice President Cheney had to say in August 2002.
CHENEY (VIDEO): I believe the opposite is true. Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits to the region, extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of jihad, moderates throughout the region would take heart, and our ability to advance the Israeli/Palestinian peace process would be enhanced.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Extremists now appear to have been emboldened. The moderates appear to be in retreat. There is no peace process. There is war. How do you answer administration critics who say that the administration’s actions have unleashed, have helped unleash the very hostilities you hoped to contain?
RICE: Well, first of all, those hostilities were not very well contained as we found out on September 11th, so the notion that policies that finally confront extremism are actually causing extremism, I find grotesque.
This kind of Newspeak is the worst kind of political weaseling. After what will most likely be eight years of the Cheney-Bush swagger, the last person we need in the White House is their rationalizer against reality.
media girl also blogs at other places.
Similar entries
- Vice President Rice?
- Is Condi Rice suddenly in the right place to replace Cheney for Vice President?
- Clinton vs. Fox's Chris Wallace: Condi Rice offers different spin
- Bush promises pie in the sky, and plenty of war beyond his presidential term
- Conyers moves for censure of President for torture, Iraq deceptions
store
Buy stuff here.
Comments
Rice has proven that we cannot depend upon race or sex as a determinant that a politician will necessarily have a more enlightened perspective, even as we obviously need more women and minority representation in politics. As an example I'll use Rice's position on Zimbabwe. Whites owned 74% of the land and virtually all the good land. Mugabe tried to turn the land over to the landless 90% of the black population. The EC, under the encouragement of England (which has close cultural, political and economic ties to the White elite) and other Western trade and political groups wanted to drive Mugabe from office and halt land reform. Rather than playing a constructive role Condoleeza (who allegedly was "especially concerned" about fairness and development in Africa) placed the US even further to the right, attempting to pressure the nation into a change of government. More of her "leadership".